The Natural History Museum of Utah is located inside the $103 million Rio Tinto Center in Salt Lake City, near the University of Utah campus. The center houses the museum itself, through its five floors and 163,000 square feet of space, as well as conference space, a cafe, public areas, and more. Designed by Todd Schliemann of Ennead Architects, it is one of the best examples of modern western architecture in the region. Its inviting rooms, friendly staff, and fascinating views overwhelm the visual senses.

I began a project to document the exhibits, architecture, and patrons of the Natural History Museum of Utah in December 2011. It would capture my full attention for nearly five months. I set out to find a way to convey a sense of the place to those who have never been there. What I didn’t expect was the personal journey that resulted. The meditative quality of the structure causes one to contemplate one’s existence in the universe, our relationship to it, and our relationship to each other. It is, in every real sense, a way for us to touch our ancestors, understand who we are, where we came from, and discover what we owe the future.

At the Museum’s essence is the overwhelming weight pressing on visitors that our responsibility to the natural world has never been more palpable than now. We are the stewards of this little section of the galaxy, and there is nowhere else for us to go. The exhibits demonstrate in irrefutable beauty the understanding that life is more precious than the finest gems and rarer than the rarest of minerals. A simple virus is more valuable than the most valuable painting. Consciousness, itself, the single rarest element of all.

Shown in the NHMU’s halls is overwhelming evidence of our shirking of the responsibility we owe our home. Evidence upon evidence demonstrating our wasted energy, misuse of resources, and greed. It is a slap to the face, or rather, to the soul. It begs that we awake and become aware of who we are and what our purpose must be. One cannot spend any serious length of time exploring the museum’s exhibits and not leave with a profound sense of duty, and a desire to protect the natural world around us.

It became, and still is, one of the most meaningful photographic experiences I have had.

Click an image to bring up full-size viewer. Use arrow keys to navigate.

As it has been for millions of people, one of the most profound books I’ve read explaining how to interact with my fellow human beings is How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Mr. Carnegie breaks down everything we need to do as citizens to address our most complex political issues. And he does it all in twelve easy steps. Let’s apply those principles to the debate regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). If you don’t recall what that mouthful is, I don’t blame you. The blitz in the media, and from critics, have universally labeled the bill “Obamacare.” It certainly is tempting to go “nuclear” on the bill and condemn it using words of harsh judgment. Doing so, however, reveals more about the criticizer’s thoughtlessness than it does the actual bill. If you disagree with the bill, that is fine. However, if you want to win people to your way of thinking you’ll need to follow some of Dale Carnegie’s advice.

The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.

The first step to avoiding an argument is to not be argumentative. This means you need to accept having an open mind, even if your opponent does not. Those critical of the PPACA can do this by simply stating this: “I have some questions about what is in the act, would you mind helping me find the answers?” If you are in favor of the bill, try this one on: “I may be wrong about my understanding of the bill, would you like to take the time to discuss it with me?” Both approaches set the stage for having a meaningful discussion about the bill rather than a counter-productive argument.

Unfortunately, there are bad examples aplenty. Directly from our political leaders.

“The President and his party believe in massive government intrusions that increase costs and take decisions away from patients.”

- House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor

This instantly takes an argumentative approach by telling the President (and by proxy his supporters) what they believe. How do you feel when someone puts words in your mouth? Of course, Rep. Eric Cantor isn’t the only one setting the stage for a failed discussion.

“It’s unfortunate that the Republican leadership has chosen to set jobs aside — not just this week, but essentially every week that they’ve been in charge … to spend time on partisan messaging only”

- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

Rep. Pelosi makes a similar mistake, which is to completely disregard Republican’s concerns about the bill and dismiss them as “partisan messaging.”

We, the people, are better than this. If our leaders can’t agree to listen to each other, we will all pay the price.

Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say “You’re Wrong.”

If you are in favor of the bill, you can show respect for the other person’s opinion by not applying labels to them or using argumentum ad hominem to try and undermine opponents. It is never okay to insult a fellow human being. If you are in favor of the bill, ostensibly you are in favor of it because you care about human beings, right? So why would you insult those same human beings you are trying to help?

If you are opposed to the bill, the majority may well be on your side. That does not give you license to use the same negative tactics I mentioned above. When you call the PPACA “Obamacare” that is exactly what you are doing. You are undermining the sensibilities of the very people you want to try to influence. Proponents of the bill find it offensive, and may completely “turn off” when you refer to the bill this way. You do want it repealed, right? A good way to have that discussion is by helping your opponent keep an open mind… by not offending them.

If you’re wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.

The PPACA is complex. Easily one of the most complex pieces of legislation that has ever been drafted. Many who voted for or against the bill still haven’t read it in full. Therefore, who are the experts that really understand everything in it? Wouldn’t that be a handful of people? Therefore, if you think you have a point, you may very well be wrong about it. When you discover you are wrong, admit it. Apologize. Better yet, ask your opponent to explain a particular portion of the bill you find concerning or beneficial (depending on your motivations). Try this phrase out: “Can you please help me understand what the bill means when it says …?” This approach is always better than making an emphatic stance that might later require you to backtrack.

Begin in a friendly way.

Screaming “REPEAL OBAMACARE!” isn’t a friendly way to begin a conversation with someone you’re trying to influence. Maybe that goes without saying, but it seems to happen enough that it is worth mentioning. The most important advice is to keep your anger in check. You might be very upset about the bill, but don’t let that anger show when you meet someone in favor of it. First, get on their side. Understand what they like about it. Then begin asking your more pointed questions.

If you are in favor of PPACA, then remember that those opposed to the bill may hold very strong feelings about its contents. Remember to seek understanding.

Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.

Open minds are key. The foundation for an open conversation is to find the common ground. Good questions might be: “Do you feel health care is important?” “Do you think insurance reform is needed?” “Do you hate paying taxes as much as I do?” “Doesn’t it seem like our national debt is out of control?”

Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.

This is all about listening. Listening is a lost art. It requires your full attention and focus. When discussing the bill, look in the eyes of the person who is talking. Take notes. Be engaged. Try to find the meaning beyond just the words they are using. Body language is an important element of this. Try to understand how they feel about the bill. Is this really important to them, or do they only feel casually connected to the bill?

Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.

Democrats might think they have done this with Republicans by making statements suggesting that the “individual mandate” was “their idea.” But that isn’t the feeling that is generated. How would you feel if someone did the same to you? How much further would Democrats get if they asked these questions: “How have your opinions of health insurance changed over the last few years? What was it that caused you to re-think your position?” Republicans can help modify the discussion by asking questions like these: “Is there anything in the bill you find concerning? What are some ways you think the bill can be improved?” This opens up the doors to let your opponent agree with you, without you having to say anything at all.

Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.

The other side is passionate about their point of view. Find out why. Try to see things from their perspective. This requires active listening. You can’t be waiting with baited breath to express your point of view in the conversation. Wait, think, listen. Ask follow up questions. Don’t try to score points, just try to understand.

Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.

This is absolutely critical if you want to actually try to change someone’s mind. Use phrases such as “I can certainly see how you came to that conclusion,” “That is very interesting, and a very unique way to look at it, tell me more.”

Appeal to the nobler motives.

A great way to do this is to heap praise and compliments on your opponent. Here are some ideas: “How perceptive of you to notice that, I can tell you really took the time to understand the bill.” “I can sense how much you care about this bill and what it means to everyone in our Country.” “So few people take the debate seriously, so I genuinely appreciate your willingness to think about the situation in a new way.” “I am truly impressed with how open-minded you are on this issue.”

Dramatize your ideas.

Tell a story. People love stories. How can you add a human element to your point of view rather than simply reciting facts and figures?

Throw down a challenge.

Never issue a challenge you aren’t prepared to accept yourself. If your challenge is to ‘read the entire bill’ then the way to go about it would be to say “What do you think we could gain if we both read the entire bill together?”

By following Mr. Carnegie’s advice, we will all benefit in the discussion of national health insurance reform, health care, and the politics surrounding it. However, these tips extended well beyond just this bill. Try applying them to other political discussions, religious conversations, etc. You might even want to use them on your spouse every now and then as a way to build bridges, instead of walls.

As for many photographers, family and friends are guinea pigs for my photographic experiments in composition, processing, and technique. The reasons why are simple: They can’t run away, they will still love you even if you make them look insane, and they mostly ignore your camera while you work. This kind of intimate relationship with the subject reveals a kind of photography that can be a little hard for others to digest. At the risk of showing you meaningless crap, here are some of my latest experiments.

Click an image to bring up full-size viewer. Use arrow keys to navigate.

If you want to experiment with your compositions and processing, here are some suggestions.

Break the rules.

Chop of limbs and heads.

Frame things dead center.

Freeze strange expressions.

Make the subject ambiguous.

Make leading lines go nowhere.

Move those sliders and use the filters you usually avoid.

Change the profile in your camera so you can better visualize what you are shooting.

Consider the ordinary moments, how can you add visual impact to the every day experience?

Don’t be afraid to fail. In fact, start out with the expectation that the results will be less than stellar.

Go for grab shots. Don’t worry about the viewfinder so much.

Don’t think! We work so hard as photographers turning our noodle on that turning it off can seem impossible. However, try to go with your gut reactions.

Taking this approach isn’t likely to produce any award winning shots, but it does exercise your internal vision. Flexing that muscle can inform your photography later on. You might be surprised how the ordinary begins to reveal photographic potential you never saw before.

It is becoming clear, as I continue exploring texture, that I seem strangely attracted to old walls, peeling paint, and bricks. While that isn’t all that grabs my eye, it is becoming an entire sub-theme. My thoughts have been circling around what it means to touch something. Or rather, how infrequently we think about texture as we interact with daily objects. Applying a conscious effort to think about the things we touch and experience in a day is an interesting exercise. You may find, like I did, that we interact with a surprisingly limited set of textures in a typical day. A door knob, a faucet handle, car steering wheel, computer keyboard… I touch less than 100 object in a typical day. Try counting how many textures and objects you experience in a day and leave a comment. I’d be curious to hear if my experiences are the exception, or the rule.

Beyond thinking about what textures I experience in a day, where those textures “exist” is also important to understand. It isn’t common, for example, for us to touch the floor or ceiling. We are usually unaware of the textures that make up these surfaces. Perhaps that makes it harder for us to relate to the textures that are above and below us. Unlike the ground, walls are easily accessible to our hands. How many walls have you touched in your life? Perhaps typical wall textures evoke a stronger reaction in me because those are the textures that I have more frequently experienced. What do you think?

I have started a new study of textures. Such projects always reveal something about how I am seeing, or rather, what I am not seeing. The idea was inspired by studying the life of Paul Strand, a master photographer. He learned, late in life, that all he had to do to find complete visual satisfaction was to walk out in to his garden. I am no Paul Strand, but there is little argument his words are inspiring.

“The material of the artist lies not within himself nor in the fabrications of his imagination, but in the world around him. The element which gives life to the great Picassos and Cezannes, to the paintings of Van Gogh, is the relationship of the artist to context, to the truth of the real world. It is the way he sees this world and translates it into art that determines whether the work of art becomes a new and active force within reality, to widen and transform man’s experience. The artist’s world is limitless. It can be found anywhere far from where he lives or a few feet away. It is always on his doorstep.”

- Paul Strand

Click an image to bring up full-size viewer. Use arrow keys to navigate.

A service system lift allows technicians to access the target chamber interior for inspection and maintenance.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is located at Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California. The complex houses the most powerful laser system in the world, using 192 lasers to create a peak power of 500,000,000,000,000 watts of energy for 1/20,000,000,000 of a second. All of that energy focuses precisely on a 2mm wide gas filled object in the center of a 50 foot wide metal sphere, with various detectors placed around it.

One of the main goals of NIF is to simulate certain effects of an atomic bomb without blowing one up. Really powerful bombs like the ones the US have are kind of hard to predict. It can be quite challenging to anticipate the yield a complex thermonuclear device will have. There is no nice way to say it, but we need to know how effective our nuclear weapons are so that when (not if) we use them, we know how many we need to drop on a target to effectively destroy it. We can also learn how many we can get rid of and still ensure mutual destruction of any attacker. Basically, the yield numbers are there to help us guess how many people we can kill at once.

A side benefit of our nation having a inertial confinement fusion research device (the fancy term for NIF) is that we can start to experiment with controlled fusion reactions in a laboratory setting. The hope is to some day create a self-sustaining fusion reaction. Like a mini Sun. Of course – chances are it will be decades before they have this particular part worked out. The benefit of getting it working would be an almost limitless supply of energy. I don’t know what the energy needs of the United States will be in 75 years, but I am fairly certain that without technology such as this our grandchildren will be in big trouble.

For the IT nerds in the room: 3par storage, HP blades, and a smattering of other minor gear.

Images Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The US government retains copyright on all images. Used with permission.

What I find fascinating about his narrative is how he refers to some images as “non-photographs.” Other photographers might call those same shots “misses.” He almost disregards them entirely. The only acknowledgement he gives them are as an arrow that points to the ultimate moment or vision of what he intended to show us in the first place.

This kind of discussion about the contact sheet is invaluable to anyone wanting to improve how they see, rather than just look. The process of sharing our photography with other photographers through the contact sheet is mostly lost. A relic of a dying process. Digital needs to find a way to communicate at this level. I fear it is already too late, however. A whole generation of “photographers” has arisen, not trained, not seeing, only looking. They don’t understand what a contact sheet is, or what one would do with it. They certainly wouldn’t show their “misses” to anyone, even another photographer. And this video shows exactly what we miss by taking this approach.

I have experimented with a few ways to create a digital contact sheet. However, it has been difficult to find an easy way to “transport” these images to someone else. There are a few problems I am running in to…

With digital, we take a lot more photographs. Not all of them very good, mind you, but we are willing to go after the “risky” shot more often than not. After all, there is really no cost to doing so. This means the contact sheet went from 36 images, to 360.

Uploading an entire session worth of shots (perhaps thousands of images) to a photo sharing site for the sole purpose of having a few photographers view them is simply impractical. Perhaps someday we will all have ultra-high-speed Internet connections and storage services to get over this hurdle. Let’s see where we are to in 2022.

Reviewing the images is best done together, in a conversation. We certainly have ways to deal with this, but this is the digital age. We want to post an image to a location and allow our fellow photographer to view the images when they have the time. We prefer fewer real-time conversations in favor of large-scale communication.

Most of us shoot RAW. That means we have to consider the storage costs of storing unused, uninteresting, or unusable frames. Some photographers I know dump all their RAW files to JPGs, then keep only RAWs for those shots they mark as “keepers.” This still seems a less elegant solution than the contact sheet and a filing cabinet full of negatives. The reason why is that when you dump those JPGs, you lose the context in which they were placed. When you go back to your JPG archive, how do you know which ones you selected as “keepers?” We need a way to record the relationship between selected photographs and “non-photographs” in the digital archive. On William Klein’s contact sheet he used a grease pencil. Amazing how we still don’t have solutions to consistently useful low-tech options.

If any of you out there are aware of a technology that would solve some of these issues, and bring back the benefit of the contact sheet, please drop a comment.